‘The makings of a made-for-TV film’: Authorized consultants weigh in on the path of the Karen Learn case

Crime

From an alleged conspiracy to battles over proof, Learn’s case has captured native consideration.

Authorized consultants say it’s nonetheless too early to inform how the proof will pan out for Karen A. Learn, the Mansfield lady charged within the 2022 demise of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. 

However with the protection workforce and prosecutors already sparring in courtroom over eyebrow-raising telephone information and an alleged conspiracy, at the very least one factor appears clear: Learn’s case is one to look at. 

The 42-year-old is accused of placing O’Keefe together with her automotive exterior a fellow Boston police officer’s house in Canton early on Jan. 29, 2022. She has been charged with second-degree homicide, motorcar manslaughter whereas driving below the affect, and leaving the scene of a collision inflicting harm and demise.

Learn reportedly advised authorities she had no concept she may need hit O’Keefe together with her automotive whereas dropping him off at an after-party following an evening of ingesting. She and two others discovered O’Keefe unresponsive within the snow later that morning, and Learn advised officers she returned to the scene after discovering a damaged taillight on her SUV and fearing for O’Keefe’s security. 

“It’s a really peculiar case to start with,” noticed Daniel Medwed, a prison legislation professor at Northeastern College. “The concept you may hit any individual sufficiently to principally trigger them to be in such misery that they couldn’t make it right into a home would appear to contain a fairly laborious strike. And even should you had been a little bit inebriated, you would possibly pay attention to it. So my first response was that’s considerably odd, proper?”

How robust is the case towards Karen Learn? 

In a case with out eyewitnesses to testify they really noticed Learn strike O’Keefe, the proof is “fairly circumstantial,” Medwed advised Boston.com. Nonetheless, prosecutors have pointed to different proof they imagine will implicate Learn. 

For instance, investigators allegedly discovered items of crimson plastic matching Learn’s taillight within the snow the place O’Keefe’s physique had been. Assistant District Legal professional Adam C. Lally additionally famous in Norfolk Superior Court docket earlier this month that O’Keefe was seen leaving a bar that night time holding a cocktail glass, and items of a cocktail glass had been later discovered embedded in Learn’s bumper. 

After discovering O’Keefe’s physique, Learn allegedly advised a paramedic on the scene, “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”

But whereas notable, these statements could not essentially represent robust proof towards Learn, in response to Medwed. 

“It’s constant, perhaps, with somebody who’s remembering what they did,” he mentioned. “It is also per somebody who’s grieving about harm to her boyfriend and form of speculating, ‘May I’ve been concerned?’”

The protection workforce and prosecutors have gone head-to-head over different items of proof, reaching vastly totally different conclusions about the reason for O’Keefe’s accidents and whether or not his cellphone information signifies he entered the house in Canton that night time.

“It’s fascinating that either side level to the identical proof and with a totally totally different interpretation,” Boston-based prison protection legal professional Peter Elikann advised Boston.com. “And so it’s going to be fascinating to see how the proof performs out.”

‘Fishing expedition’ or authorized technique?

Maybe one of many largest factors of rivalry is the protection workforce’s declare that Learn was framed. 

Throughout a listening to earlier this month, Learn’s attorneys steered that O’Keefe had been severely crushed, attacked by the home-owner’s canine, and left exterior. They alleged a attainable conspiracy among the many householders and after-party friends, even referring to a Massachusetts State Police trooper who investigated the demise as “conflicted.”

Amongst their proof, the protection pointed to telephone information indicating that the home-owner’s sister-in-law searched “ho[w] lengthy to die in chilly” at 2:27 a.m., hours earlier than Learn discovered O’Keefe’s physique. 

“That was virtually a bombshell-looking, very robust [piece of] proof,” Elikann mentioned. “After which the prosecution offers the reason why they imagine that timestamp was unreliable.”

Particularly, Lally — the Norfolk ADA — argued in courtroom paperwork that Learn had directed the lady to Google, “‘How lengthy do it’s a must to be left exterior to die from hypothermia?’, or one thing to that impact” after discovering the physique, and that the protection workforce had misinterpreted the info, leading to a defective timestamp. 

Nonetheless, Learn’s attorneys doubled down on their claims in courtroom, pushing again on Lally’s accusations of a “fishing expedition.”

“I believe we’ve established this isn’t simply fishing,” protection legal professional Alan Jackson mentioned throughout the Might 3 listening to. “We’ve received a fish on the hook; we simply want the courtroom to assist us reel it in.”

In the meantime, the case has additionally sparked fervent hypothesis on the native stage, significantly amongst readers of the weblog Turtleboy, which has promoted theories suggesting Learn was framed.

“At first blush, it does sound fairly far-fetched, proper? As a result of it could take numerous coordination between … 4 or 5 totally different individuals,” Medwed mentioned of the attorneys’ idea. “However principally, the protection can solely make arguments in good religion that will recommend affordable doubt, and there’s sufficient right here that you may think about a protection lawyer making this argument in good religion. And so the query, then, actually turns into whether or not the jury believes it.”

He additionally famous that Learn was arrested only a few days after O’Keefe’s demise. 

“Perhaps what occurred was it simply appeared like a form of open-and-shut case, a fairly believable case — snowstorm, ingesting, damaged taillight, girlfriend who appears a little bit distraught and wonders if she did it — that principally the police and the prosecution thought that it was all tied up, and it simply took some time for them to start to research the telephone data and this different data,” Medwed speculated, although he acknowledged that prosecutors have provided their very own interpretations of the proof.

In line with Elikann, Learn’s case serves as one thing of a cautionary story about leaping to conclusions.

“On the outset of this case, … it seemed like a considerably robust case towards Ms. Learn, after which as increasingly more proof has come to mild, there are some dramatic questions right here concerning the proof,” he mentioned. “So it’s not likely clear who might probably be responsible at this level.”

Elikann added: “This case actually has the makings of a made-for-TV film, virtually.” 

What comes subsequent?

Each he and Medwed predicted that the case might hinge on knowledgeable testimony, significantly in regards to the cellphone information and O’Keefe’s accidents.

“I believe in the end, that could be the important thing to the case: Does the jury imagine the protection consultants greater than it believes the prosecution consultants?” Medwed summarized.

He emphasised that the burden is on the prosecution to show Learn’s guilt past an inexpensive doubt.

“The objective of the protection lawyer is to not show who did it, however principally to create affordable doubt about their consumer’s culpability. And that appears to be what the attorneys are doing,” Medwed defined. “Yeah, they’re pointing the finger on the different officer and the officer’s relations, and so forth. However they don’t really should show that; they simply should show that there’s affordable doubt, due to this proof, about whether or not Karen Learn did it.” 

He mentioned it’s attainable that prosecutors may very well be excited by providing Learn a plea deal, although his instincts say the case would possibly go to trial. 

Wanting forward, Elikann suspects the case shall be a “fascinating and attention-grabbing” one to look at. 

“Generally I can form of inform the trajectory of a case and see … the handwriting on the wall and I can see which path it’s going,” he mentioned. “On this one, issues are means too up within the air and it’s too early at this level.”